February 1, 2012

If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

I have to agree with Andy and his stupid hat. What matters is whether people approve of Obama more or less than his opponent, not whether he's under that magical 50% approval. I really can't imagine Oregon going Republican as the map suggests it would.

As for Andy's point, you're overlooking a significant problem for Obama, that his low approval ratings have been where they are for a long time, indicating his unpopularity has become a settled view among more than half the voters. Romney is unpopular right now because, unsurprisingly, he has been in a fierce campaign in which he is being attacked as a liberal and evil capitalist, AND he has been firing back with statements and ads that undoubtedly are pissing off lots of Gingrich-lovers and LWV types alike. Once he has the nomination sewn up, his negatives will fade back somewhat. Obama's won't.

The "I don't care about poor people remark" was stupid, but all you non-RINOs are aware that it is a partial quote, right? In the past, non-RINOs had a problem with partial quotes, a la Maureen Dowd. But in this year of the right expressing its feeeeelings, I guess there's a different standard.

Obama's partisans can delude themselves all they want, but the fact remains that O's "disapproves" have exceeded his "approves" for going on two years now. That is not changing between now and November. Under those circumstances any reasonably nonthreatening Republican nominee (and Mitt certainly qualifies) stands an excellent chance of winning.

He now shows off Michelle and the kids who are good people. She, and loving, smiling Barack, only desire better incomes for everyone, better diets to eat, and better peacetime consolation for the wounded warriors he personally brought home alive from those useless GOP wars.

N.B.: President Obama is pleading for mercy, not justice.

And mercy is shown by Americans to those who show mercy...like our own Obama family shows us everyday.

And he will contrast that meme with the heartless, abstract business man portraying himself as the Great Executive Romney coming to destroy our Obamas like he and Bain fire and destroys the weak who get in their way.

Long time to November. And as Andy points out, it's between Obama and the Republican nominee, not just a generic choice. That's Andy's insight for the year, however. If you can't see that a lot of people might actually like Mitt Romney, you can't see much.

It is true that much might happen between now and November.The trouble is that there is hardly anything that can happen that will cause people to unite behind Obama, while just about everything that can happen is likely to be blamed on him and his Democrats.

Seven mos. out from when the actual presidential campaign starts notwithstanding and mittens putting his foot in his mouth daily aside, again Althouse has already projected Barack Hussein Obama the winner.

Which is very wise of "our" smitten w/mittens hostess. :-P

As always conservatives ~ keep hope alive! that mittens will lead you to the promised land.

So let's recap, shall we:

mittens has been a loser in every political race except MA governor, when he ran as a moderate (((Dem))), w/a big $$$ advantage against a very disadvantaged opponent and still couldn't crack the 50% barrier.

Indeed, another RINO McCain, ran against Obama and lost badly to the 1st African-American president and mittens will be running against incumbent president Obama.

This is why Barry's going to try to buy the election. Case in point: rolling out the Obama Administration plan to force the big bad bankers to let millions of homeowners refinance their mortgages, or even to forgive their mortgages, no questions asked.

I'm not sure the "not concerned about the very poor" comment will hurt Romney at all. The very poor weren't going to vote for him anyway. As for the rest of population, for a lot of them, their concern is that the very poor are getting too much of their money. They see them as takers. If this is true, how is a candidate that says he isn't going to worry too much about them going to lose their votes?

I was surprised about Oregon numbers too. They just had an election yesterday to replace Democrat Congressman Wu (woo! The furry tiger suit wearing weirdo). The democrat won over a very middle-of-the-road Republican, 54-40%. It is a pretty liberal district, Wu was the representative for years and it got redistricted in order to include a chunk of Portland west hills progressives. That being said, the Willamette Valley, where this district is located, is the populated area of OR and it's always been pretty liberal.

The point is, voters dont use the same criteria on both candidates, and given O'bama poll numbers it looks like he fails step 1. And if Rommney, (who isn't my fav) is the candidate, Rommney won't scare folks, so Rommney will win.

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"

-Matthew 25:41-45

ok, ok, mittens latest Oops! faux pas moment was just trying to win over the conservative evangelicals who already don't like him lol.

Nine more months of Shiloh's indigestional labors. Nine more months of Garage "L'amazing" Mahal's breathe coaching us on how to deliver a perfect turd in the fall (has anyone volunteered for Walker's thankless job yet?)

Maybe for such a simple mind as yours. The rest of us know better. There is no one in the Republican race I won't vote for and nothing Obama can do to get me to vote for him. Yes, it's Obama vs not-Obama this time.

AndyR: Wrong again. Incumbents are always the subject of elections. You can look it up. Conveniently for Romney people have gotten to know Obama pretty well over the last three years. And fyi, Romney hasn't been running against Obama. Yet.

But don't overlook how there are some in the GOP party who are looking for their next McCain.

Also, notice this. You can't brag about Dubya, who did win. Including in Florida, where Albert Gore tried to count "hanging chads" after he lost his own home state of Tennessee.

What I do know, is that there are 13 states "up for grabs." And, in one of them, Wisconsin, the democratic maneuvers to take out Governor Walker remain on display. (Oh. And, where David Prosser won a similar campaign.)

You want statistics to predict the future? Nobody's quite been able to do that, yet.

Both parties have failed to convince the American public that they're capable of solving our decline.

I liked Newt's ideas. Today, at Drudge, there's a link to Dick Morris. Who shows how Newt reacted to Mitt's taunts. It's stupid in politics to react to taunts.

The contest we will see ahead, can even introduce a 3rd party player.

Where all the current "delegate collecting" won't count for a hill of beans.

And, who knows? Back in 1860, Abraham Lincoln wasn't afraid to walk into the GOP convention, in Chicago ... named the WIGWAM. Where he was in 4th place. He didn't even have the cards to place himself in the veep's slot.

24 hours later ... the 3 favorite sons ... had the delegates in such an uproar ... Lincoln walked into 1st place.

all those foreign investments/off shore bank accounts will at least show mittens knows how to increase his personal fortune by outsourcing overseas lol.

Oh, yes, I want to vote for someone who's a failure, someone who's never earned any success in the real world but was a community organizer or half-assed government employee living off the public dole. Having a president who understands international economics, business and law. Having a president with a record of success in public and private endeavors would be horrific. Yes, being lead by living proof of the Peter Principle has been so great the past 3 years. But, preaching hate is the way of the Democrats.

Sure. The Golden Girls, if you're old enough, give you warm feelings about the gals who occupy apartments in Miami. But in Gay Men Don't Get Fat, Simon Doonan chimes in with his take on these old cows.

But he calls them fag hags. Don't ask. But bask in his description.

He starts off talking about the chubby gals he met back in the 1970's. Regular office worker types during the day. But at night? STUDIO 54!

(It wasn't just Bette Middler who attracted these men.) Simon Doonan was right there.

"PS: What you are doubtless wondering, happened to happened to all my old fag hags?"

He mentions a few names. And, he trucks on: "Lots of them got married, or shacked up, and yes, they stopped taking the pill and turned on the plumbing and had kids." (Blah, blah, blah.)

Then, he continues, "For some strange reason, many of my old fag hags moved to Florida."

You mean you weren't curious about all those "middle class" Floridians?

Seems Romney specifically was targeting a middle class audience trapped in a world where everything they owned, went down hill.

Of course, you can still buy real estate there. Go ahead. Improve their economy.

Obama wants everybody dependent upon his government of the cronies, by the cronies and for the cronies.

But people's need for emotional caring from a Presidential father figure still sells.

Obama continually pits on the fighter game for desperate people. He talks up doing them good with his visible right hand while his invisible left hand slits their throats with energy embargoes and environmental regs.

But who will tell this story? Not the Government media.

Who will be the story teller that we need? I pray that Mitt sees fit to learn how to tell this story.

To date Mitt's nature has been to keep his thoughts on money issues as secret as possible.

Will people trust him that way because he seems confident? I sure hope so.

(Oh, no! What's this? One of the hateful Catholics coming to the defense of the gay gay. Horrors.)

It is patently true that the more people get to know Romney, the less they like him. He's been running for president for over five years now and after all that work, even his supporters are mostly "meh" about him. The biggest thing he has going for him, his own bots tell us, is that he is not Obama. As for Romney personally, meh. Just a few days ago, his most ardent supporters were peeing in the pants wishing that Daniels or some other squish would get in the race.

Meanwhile, he is doing his best to alienate the base of the Republican party, while at the same time arrogantly taking them for granted.

Romney has not grown on people in the last five years, and he won't grow on them in the next nine months, except in a bad way. Instead, people will start getting a sick feeling in their stomach contemplating the thought of having to force themselves to go "hold their nose" to vote for him without a fit of projectile vomiting. And all this combined with getting pissed off at being expected to defend Romney's indefensibles, such as RomneyCare.

At the same time, all those folks in the middle who claim that if only the Republicans were to nominate a moderate like Romney, they would vote for him (the delusion that leads people to think he is "most electable"), these very people will, in the end, abandon him as they did John Most Electable McCain and find some justification for voting for Obama instead.

This conjecture is meaningless. Unless something drastic happens, this election will be a referendum on the economic condition at the time of the election. If things continue to improve, even at the slow pace we are currently monitoring, Obama is likely to win. If we go into another downturn... He's done.

Shiloh - "mittens has been a loser in every political race except MA governor, when he ran as a moderate (((Dem))), w/a big $$$ advantage against a very disadvantaged opponent and still couldn't crack the 50% barrier.

Indeed, another RINO McCain, ran against Obama and lost badly to the 1st African-American president and mittens will be running against incumbent president Obama."

==============Funny how Shiloh, a Democrat and Obamite, finds the Rush Limbaugh "party line" of RINO vs. heroic pure conservative..quite convenient for arguing against a lousy traitorous RINO running against Obama when they could have a pure red-blooded conservative personally saved by Jesus..

You know, interesting the Obamites are agreeing with the fat drug addict that Bachmann, Newt, Perry, or Santorum would be IDEAL to run against Obama and Carry the Banner of pure, hard-right conservatism.

Let the record show Michael opined But you are not the dumbest person on the internet and childish personal attack aside, Michael must spend all his time on the net to have come to any conclusions re: aptitude lol.

>

And no Carol, I don't feel taunted by Michael. Although I do feel empathy for Michael's futile attempt at negativity. :-P

"If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 . . . Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215."

This is laughably silly spin on the part of GOPers. Consider 2008 looked VERY different than 2007. Obama's approval ratings in 2011 (or 2010 or 2009, for that matter) may have very little to do with his approval ratings the Monday before the November 2012 election. Heck, consider the state of the economy in August 2008, when McCain WAS LEADING OBAMA, versus just a bit more than a month later when McCain suspended his campaign. This is the kind of weird conclusion you only get from pundits.

In addition, Andy is 199% correct -- Obama will be on the ballot against another person. That person will have a personality, proposals, and whatever vision he articulates for the future. For everyone but the strict partisans (meaning about 60% of the electorate), whether Obama wins or loses will depend on whether that opponent's "proposal" is superior to Obama's. You can scream all you want about how Obama is as sure as gone, but anyone who actually believes that is detached from reality.

Oh, no no no! You of all people shouldn't be wanting to destroy one of the last vestiges of actual federalism that we have.

I'm not talking about getting rid of the electoral college or GOD FORBID going to a popular vote. In that case, the rural and small population states would have no incentive to vote OR to even remain in the Union.

What would be the point, of staying in the Union when your votes count for nothing and you are controlled by the urban states? Your entire life is at the mercy of morons from Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York City. This is the sentiment in much of Northern California....San Francisco is NOT in Northern Ca.

However, it seems that in states (such as California) where the vote is split and ALL of the electoral votes in that State are given to one side, that many people are disenfranchised.

There hardly seems any point in voting at all anymore for anything at any time. When the 'race' for the candidate is over after a few states or when your vote counts for nothing at all. When your votes are overturned by judges with agendas. When your elected officials are backdoored by appointed bureaucrats and your elected officials just sit sucking their thumbs.

What is the point?

Frankly. I'm about ready for the first time in my life to not vote for anyone or anything. And I actually am hoping that we will have 4 more years of Obama and his ilk. Maybe people will finally get up and rebell against becoming serfs in a socialist country.

I see no one on the horizon who will make a difference. Those who COULD have like Palin and Gingrich have been eviserated by the media, by the establishment politicians and those who don't want to give up power or see the status quo changed. Mitt Romney...don't make me laugh.If it is going to happen at least let it happen while we are still able to protect ourselves.

Sooner than later. Get it over with. Push the reset button or else just give up and wear the serf's chains.

Frankly. I'm about ready for the first time in my life to not vote for anyone or anything.

DBQ -- Follow your conscience. Stand by principle. If not for their own sake, then for the very practical reason that if you live in Cali, you would be throwing away conscience and principle for nothing.

Obama will take California. Period. And he will take it by many more votes than your one. Don't throw away your integrity to vote for someone who is antithetical to your principles merely because he is not-Obama.

Same goes for people living in 85 percent of the rest of the country -- your vote ain't going to matter one way or the other, so don't allow yourself to be bullied, or otherwise fall for this canard of an argument that if you don't vote for Romney (or whoever) that you're helping to re-elect Obama. Instead, keep your dignity, keep your integrity, follow your conscience. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Don't do it, especially if the justification for choosing the lesser evil does not really exist.

chickenlittle said...@Shilho: Look who comes off looking like the man on moon?

2/1/12 2:11 PM

No. Andy Kaufman was genuinely funny. Shiloh is genuinely pathetic. His incessant recriminations on whining are beginning to sound like, well, whining. So far he has yet to string two ideas together that resemble reason.We live in hope though.carry on.

Drill Sgt's analysis (at 2:01) of how things are going to playout in an Obama vs Romney contest makes sense to me. For a significant majority of likely voters Obama's is a failed presidency. As long as the challenger is non-threatening/non-kooky they'll turn to him. And Romney fits that bill.

Seems to me its all about the electoral college and not popular vote. If my assertion is correct, then look at the incumbent's numbers state by state-Mr Obama does appear to have some issues. And I do agree this election will be a referendum on Mr Obama's track record rather than his challenger--Still--lots can happen in the next 9 months.

Note: Ohio voters give President Obama 51 - 44 percent thumbs down on his job performance and say 51 - 45 percent he does not deserve a second term in the Oval Office, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

I didn't call you a name. I called you a descriptive adjective. Which means pitiable or contemptibly inadequate. Both of which you live up to, admirably. Now if we could just work on your reasoning skills so that you could debate the issues intelligently.carry on

There are a lot of yellow dogs in Ohio. And there are a lot of yellow dogs elsewhere, especially the urban areas.

Sure, they will bitch and moan about how crappy Obama is. And then they'll go and vote for him because, by definition, any Republican is always worse.

Just look at the hell-holes that are most of the big cities -- controlled by Dems for generations because the only thing worse than a corrupt, incompetent, thug of a Democrat is a Republican.

It is that kind of deep-seated, knee-jerk animus and irrational antipathy towards Republicans, and conservatives in particular, that will lead many (including a certain blogger) to talk about voting Romney, but then ultimately going and voting Obama (again).

Note:Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman and Democratic pollster Dean Debnam,

Nate Silver found ranking them from the 2010 election they did lean right from their results.

No.

No he did not you silly little liar.

Here is what he said:

I mentioned in passing in last night’s post that surveys that use automated scripts rather than live interviewers — what are sometimes called ‘robopolls’ — have shown more Republican-leaning results this year.

Don't worry, stupid, if it weren't for lies you'd have nothing to post here.

Nate Silver found ranking them from the 2010 election they did lean right from their results

Um, no he didn't.

In fact, here is exactly what Silver said about PPP:

Most of the automated polling firms have a Republican-leaning house effect. For instance, it’s about 2 points for Rasmussen Reports (our estimate for Rasmussen includes polls conducted by its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research) and 4 points for SurveyUSA. Another automated polling firm, Public Policy Polling,has almost zero house effect.

No it doesn't mean Nate Silver or PPP are Gods. PPP does freely release hundreds of pages of crosstabs and encourages readers to poor through them.

The reason I know a lot of PPP polls is because I followed them on Twitter a while ago to find about up to date recall polling. And why would you get emotional over off the cuff remark? That was grounded in reality by the way. (See above links).

Elections are about choices between two people, or two parties. It's not Obama vs. not-Obama (as much as the Republicans might like to pretend that's the case)...Conveniently for Obama, as people get to know Romney they like him less and less.

Exhibit A Although being affiliated with the Democratic Party, PPP has not exhibited a Democratic bias in its polling results; according to Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com, PPP actually had a small pro-Republican bias in its 2010 polling results.

Instead of linking to a claim that this is what Silver said, why don't you link to what Silver said?

I also think it is so cute that garage accepted that according to Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com, PPP actually had a small pro-Republican bias in its 2010 polling results. without investigation or criticism.

Nate Silver said no such thing.

The person entering that Wiki entry misrepresented what Silver said about robo polling. And garage in his comical beclowning trumpeted it as "fact"!

Squeal away Jay. PPP is a respected pollster. That could change I suppose. And of course, with all pollsters, grain of salt, compare and check with other respected pollsters, and look for firms that publish their crosstabs. It's great material to read and come back and have an adult sized conversation about!

Squeal away Jay. PPP is a respected pollster. That could change I suppose. And of course, with all pollsters, grain of salt, compare and check with other respected pollsters, and look for firms that publish their crosstabs. It's great material to read and come back and have an adult sized conversation about!

We hope by the time the Republican convention gets here the first round votes will be deadlocked and thus the delegates allowed to vote their conscience.

For that to happen, in order to deny Romney a majority of delegates, it will be necessary for both Gingrich and Santorum to STAY in the race.

If either drops out, there is no assurance that the entirety of their support will go to the other. Much more likely, while many will go to the other, a significant proportion will go to Romney instead. Perhaps enough to put Romney in a position to gain 50 percent plus one of the delegates.

Only by both staying in, with Paul too, is it possible to deny Romney a majority going into the convention.

Of course you're so silly & dishonest you would never bring yourself to do that.

Romney down 8 to Obama in Ohio.

Yes, according to a Democratic pollster who cautions:One caveat: in March of 2008 we polled Ohio when the current situation was reversed- the Republicans knew who their nominee was, while Democrats were still engaged in a bloody fight to determine theirs. We found John McCain leading Obama 49-41 at that point and of course in the end Obama won the state by 4 points in the fall. So while this is a good place for Obama to be it could change quite a bit once Republicans all get on the same page.